JUDGEMENT
G.P.MITTAL,J. -
(1.)THESE two Appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 31.08.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs.8,51,976/- was awarded in Suit No.277/2008 (MAC APP.567/2009) for the death of Manju Devi; and a compensation of Rs.21,800/- awarded for the injuries suffered by Sumit Kumar in Suit No.268/2008 (MAC APP.568/2009) in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 24.09.2006.
(2.)THE sole ground of challenge is that the driving licence No. A- 7565-RJ (Old No.A-1088-RJ-1993) purported to be issued by the Licensing Authority, Alwar was proved to be fake. The Appellant Insurance Company thus successfully proved the breach of the terms of policy.
Driving licence No.14012/MTR/04 purported to be issued by the Licensing Authority, Mathura was not produced by the Respondent Avtar Singh to the Investigating Officer (IO) or even by Respondent Smt. Surinder Sharma, the owner of the offending vehicle and thus, the driving licence issued by the Licensing Authority, Mathura should not have been relied upon by the Claims Tribunal and the Appellant Insurance Company should have been exonerated of its liability.
The Claims Tribunal dealt with the issue of driving licence as under:-
"52. In the case in hand, the insured, the owner of the vehicle filed the written statement on 09/03/07 wherein in para No.16 the particulars of the driving licence of Mathura of respondent No.1 were so given. 53. Insurer/respondent No.3 has filed the written statement on 18/05/07, i.e. later to the filing of written statement of respondent No.2. In the entire written statement of respondent No.3, the insurer, there is no specific averment of any breach of any term or condition of the policy committed by the insured. There is no whisper at all of any investigation got done by any private investigator of insure or the driving licence of respondent no.1 after verification having been found fake or there being any violation either in respect of driving licence of driver or of permit of the vehicle. 54.R2W1 testified that she was registered owner of the truck in question and on 05/01/06, respondent No.1 approached their firm for employment and made and application mark ,,A and also handed over the driving licence No.14012/MTR/04 issued by Licencing Authority, Mathura (U.P.) valid from 30/12/05 to 29/12/08 for heavy transport vehicle, copy mark ,,B Respondent No.1 was asked to drive the truck and after being satisfied then was employed by respondent No.2 on her vehicle and was told to get his licence verified from the concerned authority. The said verification report, mark ,,C has been placed on record."
(3.)IN United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru and Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 338 the Supreme Court held that the owner of a vehicle at the time of hiring a driver is not expected to visit the office of the Licensing Authority to verify the genuineness of the driving licence. If a driver produced a driving licence which on the face of it looks genuine and the owner is satisfied about the competency of the driver to drive the vehicle, he cannot be said to have committed willful breach of the terms of the policy and the Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability.
In the instant case, the owner Smt. Surinder Sharma not only obtained a copy of the driving licence from the driver at the time of engaging him which was issued by the Licensing Authority, Mathura but also gave the particulars of the driving licence in the written statement. Not only this, she also proved by examining R2W2 J.C. Bhatia that the licence was genuine.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.